We Are at War with Eurasia

Reaction Paper #2

---

War time Propaganda in the USA, a literature review


"The Rhetorical Roller Coaster to War: San Francisco Chronicle Headlines 8/2/90-1/15/91" by Carol Wilder and Adam Colby is a brief survey of the tone in newspaper reporting headlines over the given time period. The tones of the headlines were sorted by readers into 4 categories: No News, Bad News, Mixed News or Good News. The categories are a reflection of how war reporting was conceived on a given day. According to the authors, the reporting showcased an erratic representation of the war in Iraq, which left the readers in a confused state. The authors also noticed that, "...percentage of 'No News' reporting during this pre-election period was more than twice the overall averageWilder, Carol, Colby, Adam. "The Rhetorical Rollers Coaster to War: San Francisco Chronicle Headlines 8/2/90-1/15/91." Magazine. 11.2 (1992): 110-120. Print. " leaving them to believe that it could be part of a Pentagon moratorium on war reporting during that period. However, for this conflict this was not confirmed by the authors. Although this was a good idea to sample reporting, I feel that this research could be expanded, perhaps to other conflicts and more newspapers. This sample is too small, although it does reflect the authors thesis that the reporting from a day to day basis was ambiguous and could lead to readers being confused as to the ongoing nature of the conflict. Quantitative analysis of news reporting is important for giving a solid, numerical backdrop to an author's theoretical approach. Wilder and Colby do original research which happens to support their theory. In Michael I. Niman's piece, "Spinning the War, Lessons in Propaganda Niman, Michael I. "Spinning the War, Lessons in Propaganda." ArtVoice 2003: Print. ", the author conglomerates statistics from a small handful of other reputable sources to make his point. Some of the evidence the author cites to support his argument include a survey from Editor and Publisher of the first week of the latest invasion of Iraq. In that study Editor and Publisher found 15 stories that were later proven false and retracted or changed. The author also cites a study by FAIR which found anti-war news previous to the invasion to be almost totally invisible and 3/4 of those consulted regarding the invasion on television news were or had been at some time working in government. This article and the report cited by FAIR comes out 5 years before the investigative article in The New York Times by David Barstow, "Message Machine, Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand".Barstow, David. "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand". New York Times, April 20, 2008 Barstow's article was the result of a lawsuit brought to the Defense Department by the New York Times for communications detailing years of talking points propagated by the Pentagon for military analysts. This extensive article documents how the Pentagon was directly paying many analysts, many of whom worked for military contracting companies which compete for contracts, to appear on television news program and echo their policies. According to this article, this had been going on for years in attempt to defend against criticism of the war and to falsify a sense of widespread objective support for their policies from seemingly credible sources. This article is a solid documentation of one of the latest and most widespread occurrences of state sponsored war time propaganda. In another article that was published this month, we learn of Blackwaters purchasing of support of Iraq's officials after the Sept 2007 Nisour Square incident where Blackwater employees killed 17 civiliansMazetti, Mark Risen, James. "Blackwater Said to Pursue Bribes to Iraq after 17 Die." New York Times 11 Nov 2009, . Blackwater had been awarded top military contracting positions within Iraq after the invasion. Top executives, including the President (at the time) Gary Jackson, approved the $1 million bribe after the company received widespread criticism of their actions. This article is framed as a corruption article, but is evidence of a private contractor's attempt to buying positive publicity after an extremely negative and well publicized incident within a war zone. In May of 2007 documents were released about another incident in Haditha in 2005 where 24 civilians were killed by US Marines. Von Zielbauer, Paul. "Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings" New York Times, 6 May, 2007

The immediate response within the chain of command was to blame the deaths on the actions of insurgents. However, later officers were charged with covering up the incident. This article is also framed an incident of corruption. Lorie Robertson writes in the American Journalism Review in 2003 Robertson, Lorie. "Bagdahd, Urban Legends." American Journalism Review. (Oct/Nov 2003): 26-31. Print. writes about Pew Research polls, The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) polls and the (then) current understandings of the war in Iraq. According to those polls there was a large divergence between how the American public understood the events in Iraq and it's surrounding policies and what had actually happened in the lead up and during the initial invasion. In the PIPA survey they found that those who claimed to watch FOX news were more likely to believe that WMDs were found in Iraq. The author ascribes this to the possibility that, "there's something in the way that news is presented..."Robertson, Lorie. "Bagdahd, Urban Legends." American Journalism Review. (Oct/Nov 2003): 28. Print. on FOX or that people are making assumptions based on their values and previous knowledge of Saddam Hussein. She also notes that a lot of the misconceptions found in the polls could be a result of the president's announcements and declarations during that time. However, she does so without implicating the president or FOX news. Also in the article is a comparison between the knowledge and attitudes of newspaper readers with people who watch the news on television. Her research is instead somewhat removed from the political debate and acts more to interpret the information as isolated incidences. The article is a presentation of findings with smatterings of quotes from other journalists as to how this information should be interpreted. In a more critical look at news coverage during the invasion of Iraq, The Nation blasts CNN's embedded news coverage as serving the Bush administrationDouglas, Susan J. "CNN War Casualty" The Nation, April 14, 2003, pg 8. . The article itself is more of a blurb but points to evidence within the coverage of CNN's self censorship and sycophancy with the administrations policies. The article does not make the claim of straightforward propaganda, but does imply that CNN has showed journalistic weakness in it's reporting on the war and argues that the channel should aim to inform the public objectively and not to serve the purposes of the administration. evidence within the coverage of CNN's self censorship and sycophancy with the administrations policies. The article does not make the claim of straightforward propaganda, but does imply that CNN has showed journalistic weakness in it's reporting on the war and argues that the channel should aim to inform the public objectively and not to serve the purposes of the administration.

In another article from The Nation by Kai Bird and Max Holland, the authors reveal how the Reagan administration had been funneling money through the N.E.D. (National Endowment for Democracy) to an organization called, The Freedom HouseBird, Kai and Holland, Max. "Freedom House Journalists". The Nation. 24 May 1986 pg 720 . This organization selectively chose democratic movements from all over the globe, mainly those that were allies to the US at the time, and forwarded news stories written by neo-conservative allies to journalists in about 50 other countries. The point being, to use a third party seemingly impartial source to deliver the administration's agenda to foreign countries. The author's concluded that the attempt at propaganda in this case proved ineffectual and was a waste of federal money.

Ray Eldon Hiebert catalogs the tactics used by the Bush administration during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to keep the conflict essentially TV and reporter friendly, in his article, "Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary ReviewHiebert, Ray Eldon. "Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary Review." Public Relations Review. 29.3 (2003): 243-255. ". Hiebert asserts that "communication tactics" evolve with new technology in order to win the media war on the home front. He covers everything from the falsification of evidence by members of the CIA to US forces destroying the Iraqi media infrastructure and it's replacement by military radio. Hiebert also notes importantly, how the development of live streaming news from the front lines changed the way we saw the war. A program by the Pentagon, Combat Camera, produced almost 1,000 still digital images a day and 25-50 video clips per day and distributed them to news mediaHiebert, Ray Eldon. "Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary Review." Public Relations Review. 29.3 (2003): 251

. Of course these images being hand chosen by the Pentagon, were not made known by the viewers their origin. In conclusion Hiebert argues that due to the changing/ rapidly expanding use of propaganda and misinformation in warfare, there remains a need for a strong independent press.

George Kateb, in his article, "The Novelty of War"Kateb, George, "The Novelty of War". Good Society Journal. (2007) Vol 16. Issue 2. p25-31 takes the lies of the Bush administration in the run up to the war as a given and asks imperative questions surrounding what the real motives for the invasion of Iraq were. In this case the author argues that the American public would've accepted many reasons for war with Iraq, however, since none of them given to us were true, the only purposes these lies served was a smokescreen for the real reason(s). Kateb ads an important question to the debate regarding the use of propaganda for this invasion. Will the American public ever know the real reasons behind the invasion, if it had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction nor the ties between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein? In this case the author is not merely collecting information regarding incidences of purposeful deception, nor trying to to quantify any evidence pertaining to the issue, instead, the author is trying to make sense out of how and why the nation as a whole was mislead on such a large scale.

Umaruh Bah describes the history of development communication research out of Cold War propaganda studies inside higher education in his article, "Daniel Lerner, Cold War Propaganda and the US Development Communication Research: A Historical CritiqueBah, Umaru. "Daniel Lerner, Cold War Propaganda and US Development Communication Research: A Historical Critique." Journal of Third World Studies. XXV.1 (2008): 183-196. Print. ". Bah posits that the development communication research sprung directly from US Cold War propaganda objectives. In it he identifies higher education institutions that received large amounts of money from the federal government to help them spread their policies and increase their support internationally via social science research and specifically follows the career of Daniel Lerner, a communication and propaganda researcher. This article does not seek to define a paranoid vision of widespread propaganda, but instead identifies where the government directly paid higher education institutions for results that would show US policies favorably. The New York Times does a good job of covering stories on a day to day or short term basis of events as it pertains to the conduct and cover ups on the battle field. They also did an excellent job suing the Defense Department for access to their files surrounding the use of military analysts to echo the military's messages. Within the sphere of academic writing, I would like to see more surveys and cataloging of uncovered cases of straight out misrepresentations that were later found to be false with more coherent theories behind them. For instance, George Kateb asks, "Why?". If all of the stories and tactics used by the Bush administration in the run up and follow through to the war were found to be false, what are the real reasons behind the invasion? I would also like to see more work in the vein of Wilder and Colby analyzing the headlines in major newspapers during strategically important moments (such as run ups to invasions). I feel that the "roller coaster" theory may have more to it than was provided in their short survey. Overall I feel there are a lot of holes to fill pertaining to the research of the modern use of US government propaganda, but there is also a lot to build from.